Care to explain how its not?
Let me preface this by saying that I have not seen the video, but even if they said that only the flying spaghetti monster can save you from ARDS, I'd rather live in a world with free exchange of information (even misinformation).
bleepblorp|5 years ago
It's one thing to spread disinformation that leads people to harm themselves (for example, by encouraging them to drink laundry detergent or bleach). It's quite another to spread disinformation that harms third parties. Third parties have no say in what disinformation the gullible choose to consume but they will be subject to the consequences of the gullible believing what they've been told.
Every polity that has something resembling a right to freedom of speech imposes limits on that speech when it can harm others. Libel, slander, and incitement are not generally tolerated. Restricting the spread of disinformation that increases the impact of a deadly pandemic is no different.
I do agree, however, that the final arbiter of what speech is acceptable should not rest with Youtube or any other private entity. This is a question for elected governments and the judiciary.
DarknessFalls|5 years ago
We must hedge our bets and let disinformation be cut down wherever rational minds exist (for now).
cannedslime|5 years ago
This is just a private company taking control of information. Who is to say that they arent the ones spreading misinformation themselves?
gamblor956|5 years ago
cannedslime|5 years ago
redflame7|5 years ago
[deleted]
cannedslime|5 years ago